A-OK CONST. v. Castle Const.

594 So. 2d 53, 1992 Ala. LEXIS 99, 1992 WL 14628
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJanuary 31, 1992
Docket1900404
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 594 So. 2d 53 (A-OK CONST. v. Castle Const.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
A-OK CONST. v. Castle Const., 594 So. 2d 53, 1992 Ala. LEXIS 99, 1992 WL 14628 (Ala. 1992).

Opinion

No properly filed brief; see explanation in the opinion.

After the notice of appeal was filed in this case, the attorney for the appellant filed a motion to withdraw from the case, and this motion was routinely granted by the clerk of this Court. The appellant is a corporation, and a brief that was signed only by the president of the corporation was submitted to this Court. The president is not a lawyer, and the general rule is that a corporation can appear in court only through an attorney; it cannot appear pro se. See Brown v.Parnell, 386 So.2d 1137 (Ala. 1980); Ex parte Lamberth,242 Ala. 165, 5 So.2d 622 (1942); Kanape v. Reeves, 127 Ala. 216,28 So. 666 (1900)1; and Hawkeye Bank Trust, National Ass'n v.Baugh, 463 N.W.2d 22 (Iowa 1990), and authorities cited therein. Under that rule, the appeal would be due to be dismissed for the failure of the appellant to file a brief or to prosecute the appeal. Rule 2(a)(2), Ala.R.App.P. Nevertheless, we have studied the record and the materials that have been submitted, and we have determined that the judgment is due to be affirmed on the merits. That being the case, we would only cause unnecessary delay if we were to give notice pursuant to Rule 2(a) of a potential dismissal of the appeal, because such notice could lead only to an eventual dismissal or an affirmance after a pointless rebriefing of the case. Therefore, we suspend the rules regarding dismissals, see Rule 2(b), Ala.R.App.P., and we affirm the judgment.

AFFIRMED.

MADDOX, ADAMS, STEAGALL and INGRAM, JJ., concur.

1 This case is reported in volume 28 of the Southern Reporter asKnope v. Reeves.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Alexander & Baldwin , LLC v. Armitage.
508 P.3d 832 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2022)
Rimpsey Agency, Inc. v. Johnston
218 So. 3d 1242 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2016)
Downtown Disposal Services, Inc. v. The City of Chicago
2012 IL 112040 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2012)
Estate of Wilson v. Berry
68 So. 3d 178 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2011)
Lifestar Response of Alabama, Inc. v. Admiral Insurance Co.
17 So. 3d 200 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2009)
Perryman Group, Inc. v. AmSouth Bank
903 So. 2d 128 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2004)
CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon
16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 555 (California Court of Appeal, 2004)
Hy-Line Enterprises, Inc. v. Aldridge
751 So. 2d 1247 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1999)
Ex Parte Ghafary
738 So. 2d 778 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1999)
Stewart v. Korn
738 So. 2d 778 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1998)
Ex Parte Robinson Roofing & Rem., Inc.
709 So. 2d 444 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1997)
Stage Door Development, Inc. v. Broadcast Music, Inc.
698 So. 2d 787 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1997)
Downs v. Wallace
622 So. 2d 337 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1993)
Triple J Cattle, Inc. v. Chambers
621 So. 2d 1221 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
594 So. 2d 53, 1992 Ala. LEXIS 99, 1992 WL 14628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-ok-const-v-castle-const-ala-1992.